Sunday, February 19, 2006

Redistricting, revisited

Steve Higgs uses his editorial in the Bloomington Alternative to once again whine about redistricting. I've already written extensively on this subject, so there isn't much new to say. I will note that the whining and crying from Higgs and company fails to take into account that the original maps, drawn by Democrats, were heavily gerrymandered.

Following are my posts from the thread on redistricting this past summer and fall on Multi-Level Political Debate.



*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************



Aug 10 2005, 07:44 AM

The Monroe County Commissioners approved a panel at their August 5 meeting to study the existing County Council districts and look at ways they might be improved. Democrats are in a snit about this, as you can see above.

A few points:

Drawing these districts is always partisan. The Democrats drew the districts in 2001 to keep the council in Democratic hands. From an editorial in the Herald-Times a few days ago, regarding the "political intent" of the districts:
  • "District 3 was to be a heavily Republican suburban and rural district"
  • "District 4 was to be a heavily Democratic urban-to-rural district"
  • "District 1 was to be a mildly Democratic but GOP-winnable urban-rural district"
  • "District 2, the Perry Township half of Bloomington plus heavily developed parts of Perry Township outside the city plus two small urban parts of Van Buren Township, was envisioned as being reliably Democratic."
As you can see, the Democrats drew the districts to benefit themselves, and were lucky enough to be in power right after the 2000 census. Apparently Democrats expect Republicans to wait until at least 2011 and hope they have a majority on the Commissioners.

Combs makes a strange boast that Republicans are worried because of Democratic victories in 2003 and 2004. Combs may want to rethink his argument. 2003 was not unusual, as Democrats traditionally dominate city elections. Just as in 1999, the Democrats won seven of nine City Council seats. The GOP ran candidates for Mayor and City Clerk in 2003, which they did not even bother to contest in 1999. Democrats won six of nine City Council seats in 1995 and a hotly contested race for Mayor. Furthermore, Democrats won eight of nine seats in 1991, as well as the Mayor and City Clerk races.

Last year was a John Kerry sweep. Nationwide, the left wing of the Democratic Party was energized and motivated to defeat President George W. Bush. In Monroe County, the intense opposition to the war in Iraq and (unfounded) fears of a military draft helped create a huge anti-Bush turnout. Monroe County Democrats rode Kerry's coattails hard, winning every contested race but one.

2000 and 2002 were a different story. In 2000, Republicans replaced a Democratic Surveyor and won two of three at-large seats on the County Council. Republican Randy May, who placed fourth, finished less than 100 votes behind the first place finisher, "Green Democrat" Scott Wells. Wells was the top vote-getter by one vote in the official count. In 2002, Republicans won three of four County Council districts (and came close to winning the last one) and unseated Democratic County Commissioner Brian O'Neill.

Referring to the last redistricting process, Combs whines that no one objected. I wonder why that is? Perhaps people did not think the Democrat-dominated Commissioners would listen to objections. Recall that those same Commissioners eliminated a voter board set up as a watchdog two years earlier. In fact, the perception that O'Neill treated constituents in an arrogant and condescending way was one of the reasons he lost. It is also important to remember that County Commissioners meetings are at 9 a.m. every other Friday, when most people have to be at work.

Combs' complaints that there were not objections is not even true. From the Herald-Times:
"It seems like they're trying to cram something through, and we just don't know what it is at the moment," (Republican Party chairman Marty) Stephens charged.

"I think they strategically waited until there was no time and no latitude," he said. "This is going to influence elections the next 10 years, and it's important that it be done responsibly and in the interests of the voters."
I'm not entirely sure about the redistricting. Until I see the new map and have a chance to compare it to the old map, I won't be able to make an informed opinion about the districts themselves. Regarding some rumored scenarios, I do not agree with making Marty Hawk's district less Republican, nor do I agree with pitting her and Mark Stoops against each other in 2006.



*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************



Aug 11 2005, 07:12 PM




*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************



Aug 11 2005, 07:53 AM

Democrats like to claim the current districts are not gerrymandered based on two things:
  • Council districts are 75% Republican.
  • Commissioner districts are 66% Republican.
The second point is idiotic. The Commissioners are elected countywide. It does not matter how the districts are drawn, because all voters get to vote on all three seats.

As to the first, Republicans managed to overcome Democratic gerrymandering in 2002.

In District 1, popular incumbent David Hamilton was defeated in the Democratic primary by "Green Democrat" Lucille Bertuccio. The GOP immediately targeted Bertuccio in a district where no Republican even bothered to file when they expected to face (and lose to) Hamilton in the general election. "Business Democrats" (so labeled by the H-T) supported Republican Sue West.

In District 2, Republican Trent Jones won only because a Green Party candidate took 15% of the vote. All of the votes that went to Julie Roberts would have gone to "Green Democrat" Bill Hayden instead. Hayden, for whatever reason, was unable to keep those votes from going to a third party candidate. Hayden faced a similar problem the following year, losing to Republican (in name only) David Sabbagh when Mark Kruzan and Regina Moore won big majorities across City Council District 5 in their respective races for Mayor and City Clerk. Sabbagh managed to bleed off enough Democrats who voted for Kruzan & Moore to defeat Hayden.

It's time for Democrats to find a new reason to claim the districts are not gerrymandered.






*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************



Aug 16 2005, 09:08 PM

Some local Democrats are mocking GOP arguments that Richland and Bean Blossom townships should be in the same district. Perhaps they should seriously examine the issues instead of engage in childishness. Such partisan rancor does not contribute to reasonable and civil dialogue in what is already a politically charged (and emotional) debate.

Why shouldn't Richland and Bean Blossom townships be in the same district? They share a school corporation and are historically linked. The Richland-Bean Blossom School Corporation serves only those two townships, while MCCSC serves the rest of the county.

Van Buren Township should also be included in the same district as Richland and Bean Blossom. In my opinion, it would probably be a good idea to throw Washington Township in there as well.
Troubleshooter,Aug 16 2005, 03:27 PM

law requiring the district lines to be straight north-south lines and straight east-west lines, and the districts themselves to be as close to being squares as is possible.
I don't think that's possible, because of "natural boundaries" that are not straight lines. I don't think you can split precincts either, and even if you are legally allowed to it would be a logistical problem figuring out which voter in, say, Perry 14 lives in which district. It would also be more expensive because you would need different ballots for the same precinct.

Like I said before, I will have to see the new maps before I can form an opinion on whether I support changing them. There are rumors floating around the Internet that new maps already exist and have existed for a while.

I'm not sold on the idea of redistricting at all in odd years, except for the year following the census. I agree with the H-T that it presents a big political problem in that the minority party will be strongly tempted to redistrict if and when they gain the majority. I do think, however, that the Democrats are way to shrill about this and some of their more silly arguments needed to be refuted.

I don't think this will have much of an impact on the 2006 elections. The politically informed (a small segment of the population) will get motivated by it, but I doubt most voters care too much. Even with the politically informed, can the energy created by this fight be sustained going into 2006?

However this turns out, it is going to be fun to watch.




*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************



Aug 17 2005, 09:10 PM

From today's Herald-Times:
Is this the same Herb Kilmer

To the editor:

How I laughed when I read of Herb Kilmer's desire to reapportion the county council to be "more fair!" Is this the same Herb Kilmer who served with me on the MCCSC board? When we were elected, the school board districts varied in size from 5,644 (Herb's district) to 74,141 (per official meeting records of August 23, 1993). At the request of the League of Women Voters, the board voted 6-1 to reapportion the districts to make them all equal. Only Herb voted to leave the districts as they were, not fair, but an obvious political advantage for him. The attorney who drew up the new districts was instructed to make them equal and contiguous (i.e. don't gerrymander). To overturn the majority's vote, Herb and his supporters took the MCCSC to court after a petition drive failed. A lot of time and money were wasted on this frivolous lawsuit where the MCCSC attorney was joined by the Attorney General's office and the State Board of Education. Predictably, Herb and his supporters lost.

Is there really anyone in county government foolish enough to follow Herb's lead on this newest attempt to be "fair?"

Lea Jaffee, Bloomington
Interesting point Jaffee makes here. Her letter would really expose Kilmer's hypocrisy... if only it were true. Unfortunately for Jaffee, it isn't.

Yes, the MCCSC School Board did vote to change the districts in 1994, and yes, Herb Kilmer objected. However, Jaffee leaves out the context of the dispute.

How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient.

Kilmer objected because he believed that rural residents should have a better chance at having a voice on the School Board by making sure someone from rural parts of MCCSC was on the board. The February 2, 1994 Herald-Times reports that Kilmer objected to the plan on the grounds that "it would dilute the influence of rural areas and make it more likely that the residents and people with ties to Indiana University would control the schools."

Jaffee's assertion that the districts represented "an obvious political advantage" for Kilmer is more than just dishonest. It is a lie. Read the following quote from the January 26, 1994 Herald-Times:
Voters in the entire MCCSC district vote for candidates in each school board district. So, while the rural school board districts are less populous, everyone's vote counts the same.
Quite simply, as far as election results go, it does not matter how the districts are drawn because each candidate is voted on by all voters residing within corporation boundaries.

County Council districts are quite different. Four Councilors represent a different part of the county and are elected only by voters that reside in their districts. The maps can be drawn to put heavily Democratic or heavily Republican areas together to give one party an advantage in the election.

Before the 2001 realignment, the district Mark Stoops' represents was much more balanced. Now District 4 is overwhelmingly Democratic. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that Brian O'Neill and Iris Kiesling did not want to take care of Stoops?

I am disappointed that the Herald-Times chose to print this letter, since it is so full of distortions. At the very least, the Herald-Times should have ran a disclaimer with the letter that explained how School Board elections work. It is important to remember that the H-T has editorialized against the redistricting process; did the newspaper's bias lead them to a lapse in judgment?



*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************



Sep 3 2005, 08:48 AM

Patrick Dunnigan made a presentation at the Republican lunch this past Wednesday, comparing large pictures of two Republican redistricting proposals to another large picture of the Democrats' existing map. (The existing map can be seen above, or you can see a PDF at the county web site.

Despite loud screeching from some local Democrat activists, I do not see how you can argue with a straight face that the existing districts are not gerrymandered. It is clear that the Democrats created a solidly Democrat district and two Democrat-leaning districts by splitting up heavily Democratic downtown Bloomington. They packed as many Republicans as they could into Marty Hawk's district.

Don't bother coming back with the lame argument that Republicans won 3 of the 4 districts. As I explained above, there were special circumstances in the 2002 elections that allowed Sue West and Trent Jones to win. With existing districts, Democrats are much more likely to win 3 of 4 seats in 2006 than they were 4 years ago.

Apparently Republicans were wearing buttons at the redistricting meeting last Wednesday that read "one look says it all" or something like that. (I could not attend the meeting because it was too early in the afternoon.)

The Republican maps make much more sense when you look at them. They are much more compact, follow township lines much more closely, and follow natural boundaries better. I do not have JPG's of the GOP maps, and I only saw them for the first time this past Wednesday.

I will have more commentary on the GOP maps (which may or may not be favorable) when I can get more information on them. I will have reservations about any map that makes Marty Hawk's district less safe, and I do not think pitting sitting County Councilors against each other (specifically Hawk vs. Mark Stoops) is a good idea.



*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************



Oct 3 2005, 07:44 AM

Well, it happened.

Well, the Commissioners voted to change the districts this past Friday. (Click the link above for the new maps, and the old County Council map.) Democrats aren't happy about it, and have promised to make it a campaign issue in the 2006 elections.

County Clerk Jim Fielder was quoted by AM 1370 as saying that changing the districts would make local politics more divisive than it is now.

With all due respect to my friend Mr. Fielder, the level of civility in county politics is already very low. I do not think changing the districts will have any real impact on the level of local political discourse. Any impact it has would be the equivalent of a firecracker at Hiroshima. We have high-level Democratic activists physically intimidating people they disagree with at public meetings, in addition to all sorts of venomous, hate-filled personal attacks.

The 2-1 vote on Friday was changed both the Commissioner and the Council districts. Herb Kilmer said at the Friday Lunch Bunch that he expected there to be two votes, one for each map, but was surprised to see that the maps had been rolled into one piece of legislation. He voted for it anyway, voting himself out of his own district and making himself a lame duck. Kilmer will not be able to run for re-election in 2006.

This is unfortunate. I would have preferred Kilmer vote against the measure and request a "clean" vote for the October 14 meeting. While the new County Council map certainly complies with the law more closely than the Democrats' 2001 gerrymandered map, it would not hurt anything to wait two or four weeks to approve the new districts.

I applaud Kilmer's decision that his own political future was secondary to County Council maps that more closely comply with the law and are not politically gerrymandered. But while I admire his integrity, I do not agree with the vote. The new Commissioner maps make it possible that all three Commissioners will be residents of the city of Bloomington, and we need someone on the Commissioners representing rural interests.

In terms of the old council maps versus the new one, one look says it all. The new districts are more compact, follow natural boundaries more closely, and are closer in population than the gerrymandered districts the Democrats drew in 2001.

With all of that said, the maps are not perfect and I still am not sold on the idea that doing a mid-decade redistricting was a good idea. There has not been a significant shift in population that would make redistricting necessary to even things out. Furthermore, I the new maps weaken the Republican hold on District 3 and have made Kilmer a lame duck. Not only have Republicans taken a lot of political heat for doing this, they have managed to approve maps that hurt Republicans in the 2006 elections. While it is clear to all but the most partisan Democrats that the 2001 maps were gerrymandered, the maps can be fixed in 2011 if there are two GOP County Commissioners after the 2008 and 2010 elections.

Furthermore, I am not sure it is good government to pit two sitting County Council members (Marty Hawk and Mark Stoops) against each other in the same district. When the Democrats in the State Legislature drew their gerrymandered maps for the new Congressional districts in 2001, they had no choice but to put two sitting members of Congress in one district because Indiana lost a seat. The County Council is not shrinking, so more effort should have been made to avoid pitting two sitting Councilors against each other.

The new maps may lead to a political realignment with Marty Hawk considering a run for County Commissioner in 2006. I think this is a bad idea, and I have told Ms. Hawk this. We have few people in county government with a mind for numbers like Ms. Hawk has, and it would be a shame to lose her insight on the County Council. While I am sure she would make a great County Commissioner, I think that Monroe County taxpayers would lose too much by not having her watching over the county budget like a hawk. (Yes, I know that was a horrible pun.)

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over the next 13 months leading up to November 7, 2006.